Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me. We just have to provide an update
about the review status, not necessary the review itself ;)

Regards
JB

On 07/06/2018 16:25, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> Yea, this was what I mean by my question "What is the action when an SLO
> is missed?"
> 
> For example, the way we implement could just be a line in the
> contribution guide like this:
> 
> "We aspire to respond quickly to all pull requests, even if it can take
> some time to review them. If you have not heard a response in <duration>
> then please @mention someone again, try someone else, or reach out on
> Slack or dev@."
> 
> It does sound a bit overly technical to say we have an SLO of <duration>
> with an SLA that you should ask again.
> 
> Kenn
> 
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:16 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     Agree.
> 
>     Having a best effort is fine but not a strong commitment, because, like
>     in any Apache project, lot of people works on the project in their spare
>     time, or even during business time,  with lower priority.
> 
>     Regards
>     JB
> 
>     On 07/06/2018 16:11, Thomas Weise wrote:
>     > I like the idea of speeding up code review and promptly responding to
>     > PRs, since this is more motivating to the contributors, especially
>     those
>     > that are not committers.
>     >
>     > However, the notion of SLO or target response time is something that
>     > works within a company with dedicated resources. It may not be the
>     right
>     > approach for a diverse community with contributors of various
>     > backgrounds and time commitments. Establishing such policy as
>     > expectation at the project level seems problematic.
>     >
>     > Perhaps this can be a guideline or recommendation, but I don't see how
>     > it can be measured or enforced at the project level.
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > Thomas
>     >
>     >
>     > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 6:09 AM, Etienne Chauchot
>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Yes, I agree with that, I thought it was the delay to start
>     the review.
>     >     +1 then on the delay to answer
>     >
>     >     Etienne
>     >
>     >     Le jeudi 07 juin 2018 à 11:02 +0100, Reuven Lax a écrit :
>     >>     However I think it's reasonable to expect a response within 3
>     >>     days, even if that response is not an actual review. For
>     instance,
>     >>     the response could be "I'm extremely busy right now, and it will
>     >>     take another week for me to get to this."
>     >>
>     >>     On Thu, Jun 7, 2018, 10:40 AM Etienne Chauchot
>     >>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>     >>>     +1 on the purpose, but I think 3 business days for proposal
>     1 are
>     >>>     over-optimistic.
>     >>>     As an example I saw PRs taking weeks before the review started.
>     >>>     IMHO, I think you should consider raising up the 3 days bar
>     a bit.
>     >>>
>     >>>     Best
>     >>>     Etienne
>     >>>
>     >>>     Le mardi 05 juin 2018 à 15:04 -0700, Andrew Pilloud a écrit :
>     >>>>     The one thing that seems a little odd to me is using business
>     >>>>     days. The beam community spans across company and country
>     >>>>     boundaries, which makes business days a slightly ambiguous
>     >>>>     concept. Not everyone's holidays and weekends line up. I also
>     >>>>     agree with Alan, we need to build in time to disconnect. If
>     this
>     >>>>     is opt-in, it might make sense to collect working hours and
>     make
>     >>>>     it easy to opt out if you aren't going to be available for an
>     >>>>     extended period. Until recently we had a page listing committer
>     >>>>     companies and time zones. Bringing that back would be a
>     good option.
>     >>>>
>     >>>>     Andrew
>     >>>>
>     >>>>     On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:29 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan
>     >>>>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>     >>>>>     Thanks Ken for pointing out that vote is a two step process. I
>     >>>>>     will write an extended written doc about pros and cons of the
>     >>>>>     SLO and any related topics. In the meantime, feel free to use
>     >>>>>     this thread to express any suggestions and concerns.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>     Thanks, Huygaa
>     >
>     >
> 
>     -- 
>     Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     http://blog.nanthrax.net
>     Talend - http://www.talend.com
> 

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Reply via email to